TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | Nancy Pelosi

The Cojone Factor

By on 18 November 2010



Out of the mouth of a top Clintonite. Ouch. The Carteresque storyline continues, unfortunately, it’s coming from Democrats.

There’s never been any love lost between Obama and Carville. It exploded again during the BP disaster, when Pres. Obama was caught ill prepared and ineffective. However, what Pres. Obama and the White House misses with Carville, as do many of the pundits, is what James Carville is saying channels many working class American voices and how they feel about the President, too. It was proven in the midterms.

So to say Democrats have lost faith in Pres. Obama is an understatement. To say they’re stuck with him is a fact. …though depending on his decision on Social Security recommendations from the Debt Commission a primary challenge on the wings of principle may still manifest. The only hope is that Obama’s ego will become engage and he’ll start fighting back. A good place to start would be on middle class tax cuts, not the upper 2%.

If Obama doesn’t get the bottom line of Carville’s message he’s in for a very rough reelection battle.

It’s not a pretty picture for the President or his party right now. Charlie Rangel pleading for mercy in the House. Obama’s own plight punctuated by a less than enthusiastic election of Nancy Pelosi to minority leader. Not that she didn’t win in a walk, but that no one was exactly elated about it was obvious. Then there is Harry Reid… ugh.

Same leadership. Same problems. Same spinelessness.

Read full story · Comments { 48 }

The Buzz

By on 15 November 2010

Like it or not, Republicans “never talk” to Pelosi:

“I get along pretty well with Steny. He’s the only one we really talk to,” Ryan said Monday morning on CNBC. “I don’t know Nancy Pelosi. I had a 30-second conversation with her about six years ago, and that’s about it.” [...] “She just doesn’t talk; I’ve never talked to her,” Ryan said of Pelosi. “I’m not casting aspersions — just, Steny talks to us.” – Top Republican: Hoyer is ‘the only one we really talk to’

Not talking to the other side doesn’t seem like a very good way to lead. That goes double when you get bills like health care, which was a conservative concoction and the worst of corporatism.

Some things cannot be altered through conversation and bipartisanship, which means fundamental principles don’t yield to capitulation for “accomplishment” sake.

Reps. Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.) and Lynn Woolsey (Calif.), co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said extending the tax breaks for those earning more than $250,000 a year represents “a giveaway” to wealthy Americans that would saddle the country in unnecessary debt.

“This debt, in turn, will be paid by the lower and middle classes through increased interest payments and decreased social services for generations to come,” the lawmakers warned in a Monday letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

“This astronomical sum could instead be used to close our budget deficit. It is critical that we pass President Obama’ s middle-class tax proposal without providing an even greater lift for the wealthiest Americans who don’t need it.”

I’m not sure at all Pres. Obama gets this, which is proven further in this mind blowing piece (bold added):

But as the president returned home on Sunday to face an even more rigidly divided capital, Mr. Obama went even further by blaming himself for failing to do what he had repeatedly promised — change the tone in Washington.

He said his own “obsessive” focus on implementing the right policies had led him to ignore a part of the reason voters handed him a mandate in 2008.

“I neglected some things that matter a lot to people, and rightly so: maintaining a bipartisan tone in Washington,” he told reporters in a brief question-and-answer session aboard Air Force One as he returned from a 10-day trip to Asia. “I’m going to redouble my efforts to go back to some of those first principles,” he promised.

Our President is fundamentally clueless. Anyone thinking that the historic rout in the midterms was about “maintaining a bipartisan tone” is too.

If this turns out to be Obama’s route the Democrats are cooked, though the Serious People will love it.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Sick of the Same Old Faces

By on 15 November 2010

They don’t call it a lame duck session for nothing.

Nancy Pelosi didn’t want to go away with the huge midterm loss, but she should have and so should have Harry Reid. On a day when Rep. Charlie Rangel begins defending himself against ethics charges, somehow I think the investigative nature of Congress will take center stage in January. But we’re not there yet. Mark Knoller already reporting Rangel walked out after being denied a postponement.

In the face of the Right’s Tea Party energy infusion, Democrats look positively archaic. Some Democrats agree and are at least trying to shake things up. From the Washington Post:

Upstarts such as Udall, his cousin Tom Udall (N.M.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Mark Warner (Va.) are expected to wage a fresh campaign to change Senate operating procedures and give first-term lawmakers a greater say over Democratic strategy and how the party communicates with voters.

… A proposal by Tom Udall would grant the Senate majority party the option of changing any procedural rule, including the filibuster, by a simple majority vote at the beginning of each Congress. A milder version advanced by Mark Udall and congressional scholar Norman Ornstein of the conservative American Enterprise Institute would restrict the use of the filibuster by the minority party, while limiting the majority’s control over minority amendments. [...] “At the very least, we need to remove the 60-vote rule for bringing a bill to the floor and actually debating it and voting on it,” Coats said. “The American people deserve that we are transparent with them, that we take one item at a time, that we register our yeas and our nays and be accountable to the American people for what we’ve done.”

Anything would be an improvement in the Senate, which has come to represent everything that is wrong about government.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Sunday News Round-Up

By on 14 November 2010

Can't We All Just Get Along?

Good morning!


On this day in history, November 14 1881, Charles J. Guiteau went on trial for assassinating President James A. Garfield. He was convicted and hanged. And so it goes.



Your Sunday link dump:

~Pro-democracy activist Aung San Sung Kyi was released from house arrest yesterday in Myanmar. While almost the whole world welcomed this long-overdue move, it is clear that the release was timed to ensure the pro-democracy movement wouldn’t get in the way of Myanmar’s recent sham elections. There is also the possibility that she could be re-arrested if the ruling junta feels threatened by the outpouring of support for her.

~To earmark or not to earmark, that is the question.

~This WaPo opinion piece by Patrick Caddell and Doug Schoen has generated lots of buzz on the internets. Irrespective of where one stands in regard to the Obama presidency, I find their logic to be tortured and inapplicable to any other situation in recent memory. I have been very disappointed in President Obama, but for the life of me I can’t get my mind around their argument. Imagine the same sort of advice being given to President Bill Clinton after his midterm defeat- “sir, if you want to unite the nation, quit!”

~Alvin Greene for President? Isn’t his 15 minutes of fame up yet?

~Nancy Pelosi seems to have averted a political knife-fight between Steny Hoyer and James Clyburn.

~When Barack Obama ran for the Presidency, didn’t he sort of make it sound like many of Bush’s terrorism policies were, well, a flagrant abuse of power and in some cases, undemocratic and even tyrannical? This isn’t really the sort of change many people had in mind. Oh, and the WH has apparently given up on closing Gitmo.

~It’s official, China owns all our stuff.

~Despite Joe Miller’s best efforts at getting as many write in ballots nixed from the final tally of votes in Alaska, Sen. Murkowski is maintaining her lead.

~Republican Rep. Eric Cantor promised a foreign leader that the GOP would serve as a “check” on the Obama administration’s foreign policy towards said foreign government. So, where’s the outrage? Oh, the foreign government is Israel? Never mind.

~I created a diary about this yesterday but I just wanted to highlight it because I just think it’s so strange. Cindy McCain totally flip-flopped on her opposition to DADT just days after the release of a really effective N0H8 anti-bullying ad. I get the feeling perhaps John McCain didn’t know she was going to do the ad? I don’t know, what do you think is going on?

~You know, if Sarah Palin runs for POTUS I can’t wait to see how she does it entirely through Facebook, Twitter and Fox.

~Speaking of which, Sarah Palin’s unfavorable numbers hit a new high. While there is no denying how popular she is with the Tea Party crowd, the same problem remains- she is not popular with independents and mainstream republicans. I don’t know how she could win the presidency with such a narrow base of support. Of course, I have been wrong before.

~Ok, you made it this far, good on ‘ya! Ever seen kite-surfing?

~Everything you need to know about how the media views democratic politics is summed up in this yawn of an opinion piece by Dana Milbank. Obviously, the only solution for Obama is to take on that annoying liberal base of his and tack to the right! It’s The Only Way!

~Hamid Karzai gave an interview to the Washington Post and I have a feeling the White House is abuzz this morning. It’s really worth a read. Basically, he’s on a collision course with Gen. Petreaus and the administration in terms of the direction of the war.

~Fox News host Mike Wallace is a man dammit and men don’t cry! And he knows how to satisfy a woman! So there!

~It’s official. Cats have a lot more class than dogs.

~The NY Times has obtained a report which the Justice Dept. has tried to prevent from becoming public- it outlines US complicity in preventing Nazi war criminals from being brought to justice if the US thought they could aid our intelligence or defense apparatus. It’s interesting that the Justice Dept. has been trying to block this- should we perhaps start calling it the Injustice Department?

~While no one can deny the wave of anger and disgust which resulted in the democrats’ “shellacking” in the midterms, there are some trends that just don’t make sense. For example, if you want to “throw the bums out” because of their insider status and Washington Ways, why then do you elect former Senator-turned-lobbyist Dan Coats to be one of the Senators of Indiana? Of course, FreedomWorks is also an inside job.

~Obama’s ten day trip to Asia was, well, underwhelming to say the least. More here.

~Steve Clemons over at the Washington Note has an interesting piece up about how Secretary Clinton, and by extension the administration, might benefit from bringing in some people who have differing views on how to move forward with respect to Mideast peace. There is a tendency in Washington to over-rely on the same people who hold the same views and that can be limiting. It may be time to think outside the box.

~Speaking of which, Netanyahu spilled the beans yesterday at his Cabinet meeting about what the US has offered Israel in return for a 90 day quasi-moratorium on settlement building in some areas (but not East Jerusalem). You can read about it here. The response of Netanyahu’s right wing coalition to what even the NYT and former Israeli Ambassadors have called “overly generous?” Everything the US has offered is not enough because they should be giving us all that stuff all the time anyway. Unbelievable. Netanyahu could still approve the deal but he could face the break down of his coalition. Or not.

~I’m fascinated by the MSM and White House spin on the formation of the Iraqi government, eight months after the election. While I guess something is better than nothing, it would appear that Iran may be the winner of the Iraqi elections. However, Foreign Policy’s Marc Lynch disagrees with that assessment. His article is here.

Read full story · Comments { 28 }

Remembering the Real George W. Bush on Veterans Day

By on 11 November 2010

It’s the advantage of a lesser mind that allows a man like George W. Bush to rewrite history and the legacy of his presidency through a glitzy, brilliantly designed book cover and ad campaign, which fog over the reality we left behind two years ago.

Unfortunately, because an irresponsible Republican leader has reentered the stage when his successor has plummeted from his pedestal makes people willing to invest in their gullibility to whitewash the economic and foreign policy recklessness that got us where we are today.

That it took Pres. Obama, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats to ignore investigating Mr. Bush’s potential crimes as president, including torture that he has now admitted he ordered, should not go without mentioning.

Our Soldiers are still paying for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney’s decisions, with Iraq droning on for another year at least, the leader of VoteVets, Jon Soltz, about to redeploy to Iraq, while tens of thousands of our Soldiers in Afghanistan fight and die daily to legitimize Pres. Karzai.

With all the talk about debt and austerity, even Pentagon cuts, still no one is daring to touch the $2 billion a week we spend in Afghanistan, or that our job in Iraq is done, but yet 50,000 troops remain.

On this stage George W. Bush parades making the case that he was Decision Guy and doesn’t regret that he took this country to war on a lie, but ensnared our nation in disgrace through torture Bush himself now admits he sanctioned. Ironic that he’s passing the buck to “the lawyers” who told him it was legal.

Our leaders don’t take responsibility for anything anymore. Whether it’s Pres. Bush or his successor they talk about responsibility, but never do anything more than defend themselves, as if leading the United States is about the ego of the Executive Branch occupant.

For leaders and those who sacrifice we have to look to the best of our Soldiers.

Former Pres. Bush even did his best to ruin our fighting force, because by breaking faith with our soldiers by advancing a war that should have never been fought, disgracing this country through Abu Ghraib, it’s difficult to inspire people to enlist, our standards having to be lowered because of Mr. Bush, a man who sullied his own service through unanswered questions.

But to relive the full extent of Pres. Bush’s earned mantle of the worst president in U.S. history you have to relive the story of Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson, two patriots who Bush and Cheney, Scooter Libby and Karl Rove, decided were expendable. Two true American patriots I have met and interviewed for whom respect is too small a word. For telling the truth Joe Wilson was hounded, his CIA wife cover blown and exposed, their lives upended and their family put in danger, all because Mr. Wilson dared to expose the facts.

On this Veterans Day, as Mr. Bush parades himself on TV, acting as if being the Decider in Chief when compared to the decisions he made is anything for which he should boast, we owe it to our Soldiers to remember the truth.

The leaders our Soldiers in the field have today don’t come close to measuring up to what’s deserved. There is no Harry S Truman, no John F. Kennedy.

Bush’s successor, Pres. Obama, has also broken faith with Soldiers, those gays and lesbians who serve, by refusing to move forward and honor all those who serve, with 70% saying repealing DADT is an idea whose time has come. This Veterans Day we find yet another president doing less for our Soldiers than they’ve earned.

How many more Soldiers will die for a lie in Iraq before we finally leave?

What is the mission in Afghanistan we are asking our Soldiers to accomplish?

There are no leaders to tell us.

Dedicated to my Uncle Dick who fought in WWII, my Marine brother Larry, who if John F. Kennedy had been George W. Bush would have ended up in Cuba, and to Jon Soltz, who is deploying to Iraq, as well as all the other women and men, straight and gay, Soldiers, who put their lives on the line every day. Hu-rah.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Pelosi and Reid Should Step Down as Leaders

By on 08 November 2010

Why Democrats don’t see this is beyond me, but I’m not surprised. It’s in line with their general tone deafness of the midterms when they thought talking about foreign money “stealing” elections would be a good closer. That not addressing the real need for a foreclosure moratorium might send a signal to the middle class. The fact that Pres. Obama and Dems are actually considering caving on the Bush tax cuts. You know, because actually standing for something, including solid monetary policy over political cowardice, is harder. Because when you can’t make the argument it’s easier to just go along.

The New York Times weighed in today:

Ms. Pelosi announced on Friday that she would seek the post of House minority leader. That job is not a good match for her abilities in maneuvering legislation and trading votes, since Democrats will no longer be passing bills in the House. What they need is what Ms. Pelosi has been unable to provide: a clear and convincing voice to help Americans understand that Democratic policies are not bankrupting the country, advancing socialism or destroying freedom.

If Ms. Pelosi had been a more persuasive communicator, she could have batted away the ludicrous caricature of her painted by Republicans across the country as some kind of fur-hatted commissar jamming her diktats down the public’s throat. Both Ms. Pelosi and Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, are inside players who seem to visibly shrink on camera when defending their policies, rarely connecting with the skeptical independent voters who raged so loudly on Tuesday.

Speaker Pelosi has been a formidable House advocate for Pres. Obama. The trouble is that advocacy of Obama’s health care preferences was a prime cause a historic Democratic defeat last Tuesday. Not only did 56% of Independents vote Republican, but 59% of seniors did too. Women basically split the vote with Republicans and in some states tilted Republican, which is why 19 state legislatures switched too. Under Pres. Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the DNC (aka OFA), the Republicans now control 26 legislatures at a time of redistricting and reapportionment, losing more seats in the House since Harry Truman.

We could only be so lucky that last week was like ’94, but it was far, far worse.

On the bright side, the Republicans and Tea Party may come to blows, making Pres. Obama look sane.

But nothing will stop what Republicans are going to run on in 2012, which is saying to voters if they want to repeal “Obamacare,” as they call it, you have to defeat Barack Obama.

Speaker Pelosi is a great money raiser for Democrats, but there is something greater than cash… Oh, wait. In today’s politics, no there isn’t. Never mind. Long live minority leader Pelosi.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

Dear Barack Obama: Word Salads Aren’t Enough

By on 03 November 2010

The Tea Party victories by Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida underscored the extent to which Republicans and Democrats alike may have underestimated the power of the Tea Party, a loosely-affiliated, at times ill-defined, coalition of grass-roots libertarians and disaffected Republicans. In exit polls, four in 10 voters expressed support for the Tea Party Movement. And Mr. Paul called his win part of “a tea party tidal wave” in his victory speech. – Victories Suggest Wider Appeal of Tea Party

If there is one thing that wasn’t done around her it’s underestimating the “Tea Party Movement.” I’ve been warning this was coming since before August 2009. Both big two parties were sent a message by voters. The one who gets it will win the next time around too.

New media headlines from the New York Times to Politico to Daily Caller to Huffington Post look like this…











Republicans and the Tea Party energy won more House seats than at any time since 1948. Congratulations Pres. Obama, two years after a historic presidential win your coalition has been trashed.

Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Democratic legislators, and Obama loyalists thought they could pass health care legislation by throwing the American people into a corporate monopoly system against their will, while using seniors’ money to pay for it, sacrificing women, while lying to the people that it wouldn’t cost more, as you push so called “benefits” off into the future. In fact, Obama and his loyalists actually thought they’d even get rewarded. The political malpractice is epic.

Today Pres. Obama will come out and say something to the effect that “we get the message,” people don’t want obstruction or partisanship they want us to work together. The man is clueless. Following tested partisan and Democratic principles going back to F.D.R. might have saved some of last night. But Obama’s Monty Hall, “let’s make a corporate deal,” screw the policy principles mentality was always doomed to take Dems down. It was just a matter of waiting for the moment to manifest.

What voters want is for their lives to get better or at the very least to believe that the people in charge making policies understand their plight and know what they’re doing. Pres. Obama does not and, unfortunately, too many elected Dems thought their job was to walk in lock-step with a president who couldn’t find a democratic policy answer with F.D.R.’s road map.

Obama and Pelosi passed an abominable piece of health care legislation, and got their heads handed to tehm because of their collusion with big insurance, big Phrma, with the backdrop of Wall Street coddling growing larger by the day. People seeing corporations and banks being bailed out as they were left with the bill at a time when they couldn’t pay their own compounded the problem.

Unfortunately, lots of other Democrats got wiped out too, with 15 state legislators going Republican.

Seniors 65 and older want “Obamacare” repealed by 58%, with the national average for repeal 48%. Guess why? Democrats actually thought that if they took away the most reliable voters’ most coveted entitlement they’d reward them with votes. When $500 million comes out of Medicare to pay for health care for others you’re going to hear from those voters.

This was foreshadowed, but Mr. Obama and the Democrats just kept on making deals with corporations, drug makers, hedge funders, car makers, banks, and everyone else, thinking that they were still living in 2008 and anything Obama will do will be accepted. His loyalists kept clapping.

On top of this is the optics of ducking a middle class tax fight. Ignoring a chance to impose a foreclosure moratorium, which directly impacts people’s bottom line. With the basic message from Obama and Democrats being they won’t fight to make the lives of Americans better, because playing it safe to save themselves is their goal.

Refusing to fight, even if you might fail, for people who need an economic champion, something Democrats have always been for people, gets you what you deserve.

Say what you will about the Tea Party, in all of their disparate groupings and unaffiliated relating elements, but they were willing to go down fighting for what they believe in and fighting against what they thought was wrong.

All the while the message was being sent the Obama White House laughed at them, the left derided them through the help of their cable enablers, which because of their Sarah Palin – Tea Party derangement still won’t admit it, with many of the progressive drivers missing by a mile what was building.

With Sarah Palin as their celebrity media spokesperson, whether each Tea Party person liked her or not, a loosely tethered group of disaffected people got national attention, helped by right-wing radio and Fox, then on Election Day joined together in separate voting booths across this country to say Pres. Obama, you blew it, and so did the guys helping you do it.

The election results of 2010 are a result of Mr. Obama’s philosophy of cutting a deal for the sake of an “accomplishment” and in order to further your own political marketing. This craven self-serving political egotism means political catastrophe if what you’re doing doesn’t actually make the lives of people better or at the very least doesn’t make them feel as if you’re making it worse.

Pres. Obama’s cheerleading word salads are a thing of 2008. So far what Americans have witnessed and experienced through their own lives is the realization that this is all he’s got.

It’s the third turn out the bums election in as many cycles. It’s going to happen again in 2012 and if Pres. Obama doesn’t get his act together he will be turned out too.

Read full story · Comments { 62 }

Choosing Blue Dogs Over Women

By on 27 October 2010

This isn’t just about gender, though it’s clear that women understand aspects of issues like health care more deeply than many men, particularly when the males in question are Blue Dogs. As one of the lone liberal voices out here that supported Pres. Obama’s Afghanistan strategy (which stopped when McChrystal imploded, likely because of this issue), even in foreign policy this is true. After all, it was Hillary Rodham Clinton in ’95 who chastised China for their treatment of women and girls, then as Obama’s secretary of state helped make women’s roles in countries around the world a focal point. That’s because when women are engaged in a country’s future it’s more likely headed towards a path of stability.

But let’s face it, Speaker Pelosi was not a friend to women during the health care debate, and neither was Pres. Obama; you don’t sacrifice overall rights of women’s freedom and then codify it in law, even if you’re giving wider access to others. A Democratic principle is not to sacrifice one person’s fundamental rights over another. This is about choosing female candidates who are stronger on Democratic principles than Blue Dog Dems in Republican districts that will continue the Democratic Party’s slide to the right, while aiding the tilt of the right in general.

From The Hill:

Despite the environment, several longtime Democrats show signs of strength. In both the at-large congressional districts in North and South Dakota, Blue Dog Democrats hold slight leads over their Republican challengers. Rep. Earl Pomeroy (N.D.) leads by a single point, while Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.) leads by three. In Indiana, Rep. Baron Hill (D) is up two points on his GOP challenger.

Pres. Obama is helping turn the Democratic contingent of the next Congress more Blue Dog Dem than progressive. I’ve written about this before, but the rightward lurch of the Democratic Party is a danger to everything on which the party stands, including Social Security, Medicare, and the entire notion of a safety net, because empowering the Right is how this happens. Considering two years ago next week Barack Obama and the Dems had them on the mat, the current state of affairs is frightening.

When you have Independents turning to right-wing candidates like Mel Blunt of Missouri, who’s a Neanderthal on women’s issues, including on economics and health care, and Rand Paul of Kentucky, who’s bad on the same elements, but also on civil rights, you know Democrats have lost the thread. Let’s not forget also that as much as Independents don’t like either party, they dislike Republicans more than Democrats, but yet they’re willing to vote for them!

Congressional Dem femmes were vulnerable in this year’s midterm climates, because they’re now competing in the political arena like the men in a climate and off-year election that would have seen Democratic losses. But when you decide to back a Blue Dog in a right-leaning district over a progressive female who also has a chance to win if supported, you’re getting into the same old, same old sexist money game that kept women out of the political arena from the start. Never mind you’re also perpetuating the right lurch of the party itself.

Speaker Pelosi is much to blame for what’s made women’s groups and others very angry. The midterm plan she and Pres. Obama laid out is also why Democrats have lost a segment of the female population to non-voting status, while inspiring Independent females to side with Republicans.

From Sam Stein:

On Tuesday evening, the latest and perhaps last batch of expenditures made by the DCCC’s independent expenditure arm was made public. They confirm, for the skeptics, what has been a troubling trend in the committee’s funding breakdown. While money was sprinkled (in large doses) across a host of races, several prominent female candidates and some noticeable progressives were not on the list.

Reps. Suzanne Kosmas (D-Fla.), Carol Shea-Porter (D-Fla.), Betsy Markey (D-Colo.), Debbie Halvorson (D-Ill.), and Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Penn.) found their re-election contests shunned. So too did Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-Ohio), though earlier in the cycle the DCCC spent roughly $20,000 attacking her opponent.

“What I find of high concern is that here are women who do what women do when elected,” said Siobhan “Sam” Bennett, President and CEO of Women’s Campaign Forum. “They are far better on health care, education, and the extension of unemployment benefits… and what we are seeing is these women are being punished for being leaders around these critical issues… I think it is enormously shortsighted of the party to go in this direction.

[...] “It’s absolutely unconscionable that the DCCC is spending money on races and in places where these members of Congress, not only do not support the Speaker’s agenda, but don’t support the Speaker,” said a Washington D.C.-based Democratic strategist and self-professed progressive. “F—ing Bobby Bright? Give me a break.”

There is, of course, a glaring counterpoint to the theory that the DCCC has abandoned women at the behest of Blue Dog Democrats and Pelosi critics. While Chairman Chris Van Hollen directs committee strategy it’s not done without major input from several prominent female lawmakers, including Pelosi herself.

It’s just the latest bumbling from Democrats in a year that’s going to deliver a worse House outcome than it had to be.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

Outside Groups are Not What Hurt Democrats

By on 25 October 2010

“Everything was going great and all of a sudden secret money from God knows where — because they won’t disclose it — is pouring in,” Pelosi said, offering a sunny retelling of recent political history. – Democrats’ excuse: Outside groups killed us

Democrats are so screwed.

This latest development was predictable the second the foreign money story started circulating. The reason it has “morphed,” though I’ve now lost track of how many times, is because it was a colossal air ball at a time when likely voters were looking for reasons to vote for Democrats.

The denunciations of outside money by President Barack Obama and others began as a tool to rally the Democratic base before the Nov. 2 election. But in recent days it has morphed gradually into something else: A main talking point to explain—and fend off the recriminations over—what many Washington Democrats assume will be a brutal election night. – Politico

Funny, but before that everyone was saying it was the economy that did in Dems; that with 6% unemployment it would be a whole different story this year. Now, I didn’t buy that at all, because with the same policy prescriptions it seems clear that Democrats would still be taking it hard, because half-assed, badly concocted, ineffective corporate-driven policy prescriptions won’t win over anyone.

It’s not that outside contributions aren’t hurting, because they are, no doubt about it. But Pres. Obama forbade Dems to do their own version of what the Republican machine is doing, so it’s not like the playing field wasn’t even. To disarm in the face of Citizens United is just stupid. To then turn around and say Poor Me is embarrassing. Add to that the ginormous political ineptitude from 1600 and what you’ve got is a midterm cratering on the broken wings of hope.

Democrats had a populism message, from middle class tax cuts to gay civil rights to foreclosure moratorium, that could have raised the roof or at least their base and quite a few Independents. Instead they floated a foreign money “stealing” the election theme when everyone was looking for leadership not excuses. Then when it bombed and they obviously saw the carnage coming, they quickly chose instead to preemptively attack the reason there will be so many Democratic corpses next Tuesday.

The White House hiding the mirrors so they don’t have to hear the answer the next time they check in with their reflection to ask, Who’s the most incompetent of them all?

Looking for a scapegoat one week out instead of driving the Democratic populism message home, because Obama and most Dems didn’t make one, is a fitting finale on a failing campaign season that’s been colossally mishandled.

This essay has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Tea Party or Dems, Who Is Talking to Women’s Economic Angst?

By on 19 October 2010

“Women are not only the CFO in the household, but they’re the chief purchasing officer.” For the first time that I can remember, it’s Republicans who are taking on this modern reality for women, not Democrats. So, the fundamental reason the answer is Tea Party Republicans is because Democrats simply aren’t addressing the issue.

The quote above is from Lisa Caputo, former Hillary aide and close Clinton confidant, talking to Andrea Mitchell recently. That it comes from a Clintonite won’t surprise anyone, because no politicians have bored down into economic realities of the American people better than Bill, then Hillary. It’s the main reason former Pres. Bill Clinton is the hottest Democratic ticket in the country.

But the political answer is that Democrats aren’t talking to women about these issues, while the Tea Party led by Sarah Palin is. She’s even thrown down the gauntlet to Republicans. Via The Hill:

“If they start straying, then why not a third party?” the former governor added. “That’s what people are going to start asking.”

Meanwhile, Obama and the Democrats are in the weeds over foreign money “stealing” elections, which was quickly taken to rewrite after it was roundly laughed at, then changed to secret donors and transparency issue that was drowned out. The disclosure and transparency issue was always the better argument, but Dems couldn’t even figure that one out, though it still shouldn’t have been their closing argument. That’s a long-term discussion at a moment when Dems need a short-term solution for revving up their base before the midterms.

There was a short and illuminating conversation on “Morning Joe” yesterday, with Leslie Stahl asking why so many women are siding with the Tea Party. Joe wasn’t there, but Mika was the first to chime in: “Sarah Palin?”, which was asked as a question. It fell on dead air, because Patrick J. Buchanan wasn’t there to second it. Joe Scarborough is still not taking Sarah Palin’s 2010 power seriously, even though it isn’t predictive of anything beyond the midterms, except maybe a Republican civil war. For someone so smart, Joe’s missed the Palin story by a mile, with both he and Mika’s distaste for all things Palin hurting their 2010 analysis. You don’t have to like Palin or her politics to see what she’s stirred up, with the help of Democrats who haven’t been able to find a coherent political midterm message, not even with all the wunderkinds in Obamaland.

I got into a brief tweet exchange yesterday with Jonathan Martin of Politico about Palin over this article (here, here, here, here, here, here), because of Martin’s conclusion: “She’s done nothing in the 2010 cycle to demonstrate an ability or desire to appeal to anyone beyond those who are already fervently devoted to her.” Because of the political attention span of news coverage, everyone wants to already skip over midterms, which is why everyone is missing the story. Plus the men just don’t care about it, with most women in media so turned off by Palin there isn’t any objective analysis anywhere on what she’s done.

The impact of Sarah Palin out there talking directly to conservative women, Republicans and Independents, is reaching an emotional chord that has resonated, which can be seen in most people now firmly believing the GOTP will take the House. The news media is blaming the Tea Party for the chance lost by Republicans to take the Senate, but the GOTP still comes out way ahead, because take the Tea Party energy out of the midterms and they wouldn’t have had a chance at Congress at all. With the House subpoena power and investigative thirst on the Right, it’s the chamber that should worry the Dems the most.

The 2010 midterms has taken “ladies day” back in the spring, when Nikki Haley, Carly and Meg won primaries, with people talking about the “year of the women,” to where we’re now looking at Dem femmes being defeated in a potential wave year, which I’ve written about many times before. Democratic women aren’t immune to the same fall-out from an election that is a referendum on Obama and the direction of the country. Dem femmes were acknowledged earlier and more often by getting voted into Congress, with 2008 the first moment when Republicans discovered females and the power they have with the electorate.

Women still vote for Democrats in larger numbers than they vote for Republicans. However, in a year of the unpopular donkey, likely women voters on the Left aren’t seeing any talk about what matters to them, while on the Right all you hear is economics. Being torn, many femme Dems may not vote, because they can’t bear to vote for anti feminist, anti women’s freedom Republicans, even as they remain unsure about what Dems offer the future of their family and their kids. (There is also a small subset of female voters on the Left who have lost all faith in Dems, because of their abandonment of women’s rights issues in the health care bill, led by Speaker Pelosi and Pres. Obama.) Judging that the country is on the wrong track, confusion sets in for women this year, because they’re only hearing conservatives talk about their economic issues.

The voter unrest that is manifesting itself in myriad (and often peculiar) ways reflects a real fear that not just family finances but the country itself is in a state of decline. “I don’t know where we’re headed,” said a businessman named Chuck Carruthers, who chatted with me in a coffee shop in Atlanta last week. “But I’ll tell you the truth, I don’t think it’s anyplace good.” Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have come to grips with this fear, although the Republicans have done yeoman’s work exploiting it. – Bob Herbert (emphasis added)

There is no way centrist women are going to relate to Christine O’Donnell or Sharron Angle, with Sarah Palin a political sound bite superstar who simply can’t deliver on any serious policy specifics, so taking her seriously enough to follow seems like a dangerous gambit for many. Where would Sarah lead? Modern feminists know she doesn’t stand for women’s freedoms, so wherever it is it’s going backwards on a fundamental equality issue that takes women back to where the only ones who are free are men.

Meanwhile the Democrats aren’t talking to women about economics and how they can save the future of their kids so it looks like that of their parents.

Toss in all the crazy negative ads, which drive down turn out among many women, because they respond best to fair comparison advertising, and what you’ve got is a confused likely femme voter who isn’t impressed with anyone, especially if she is center to center-left in her thinking.

The conservatives and Tea Party candidates have caught the financial discontent of the country, which appeals to women who are not only the CFO in the household, but the chief purchasing officer.

Led by Sarah Palin the argument gains power on the Right with conservative women, including Independents, because it’s a first for them to have any female taking it to the misogynistic GOP who ignored women completely on the issues, but also on the national ticket, that is until Hillary Rodham Clinton lost the nomination in 2008.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Chaos Politics, No Sanity in Sight

By on 14 October 2010



There’s a reason a majority of voters want a third party, even if they’re anything but sure the Tea Party should be one of them. What’s gone on the last 19 months is enough to make anyone pine for an alternative.

One so called Democrat, Georgia Rep. Jim Marshall, is boasting in an ad that he voted with “Republican leaders 65% of the time” and he doesn’t support Pelosi. If this is the best Dems can do just give up the district to the GOTP, because we aren’t going to get where we need to be with this jackass calling himself a Democrat. Bart Stupak proved that conclusively.

Tea Party “hicky” ad candidate John Raese wants to spend tax dollars on a $20 billion extensive laser-based missile defense system. Evidently Raese is scared of everyone, but also ignorant enough to believe the U.S. is in danger in a way that is very 20th century. He’s running against Gov. Manchin in West Virginia, who actually shot the cap and trade bill, that’s right he shot it using a rifle, and also said if “Obamacare” can’t be fixed it should be repealed. That’s how badly Democrats have fallen, because we are talking about West Virginia.

Then there is Christine O’Donnell who shouldn’t be anywhere near Congress, because it’s screwed up enough without her ideology leading us further off a cliff. Charges of Marxism against Dems got old in 1954.

But nothing registers on the disgust meter more for me than the Senate race in Nevada. From Jon Ralston about the Reid – Angle race:

… I’ve read plenty of such missives over the years that have vicious language and stinging adjectives. Indeed, the Reid campaign has called Angle “crazy” and said she has “lost her mind.” But “hatred” is such an awful word — a word I forbid my daughter to use — and yet it sums up exactly why the Senate majority leader may lose to a woman who just last week talked of Sharia law existing in cities in Michigan and Texas.

It’s hatred that has brought this Senate race, with three days until voting begins, to a place where Angle can win. It is hatred that brought her that $14 million haul. And it is hatred that courses through the American electorate, bringing venomous and vitriolic assaults upon anyone who dares to suggest Obama-Reid-Pelosi is not a three-headed monster.

Angle has all but done what she promised to do when she advertised her campaign on conservative talk shows and Fox — “Harry Reid has said he will raise $25 million in this race. I need 1 million people to send $25.”

And you know what: She did it. Or essentially she did.

An incredible 161,358 people sent her checks of $200 or less. Her average donation is $90, Agen says.

This is real, unparalleled (except, perhaps, for Barack Obama in 2008) grass roots. And there is a wildfire blazing through the grass roots, with burning hatred for Reid animating Angle’s chances.

Chaos politics doesn’t happen very often in history. What we’re witnessing is one for the books, with the outcome likely to be truly stunning. No wonder people are looking for a viable alternative. Trouble is the way our system is set up there are very few ways for someone outside the two main parties to win enough states.

When candidates like those named above are considered viable and the only choices it proves why people don’t vote, particularly women, but also that something is seriously shifting in our democratic republic this year. It seems no matter which party wins this November in many races the one thing that will not occur is for sanity to be restored. Not even Jon Stewart’s rallying cry for deliverance from the chaos will make it so.

Read full story · Comments { 33 }

Dems Still In It, Because the Alternative Is Frightening

By on 04 October 2010

Once-despondent Democrats now believe that they may be able to avert a total midterm wipeout, as a series of important states now appears to be trending in their direction or growing more competitive. The bad news: In a sign of how hostile the election environment remains for the party, the cautious optimism is largely due to the view that the impending political hurricane could be downgraded from category 5 to category 4. … – Democrats seize on signs of hope



The One Nation rally and the latest Newsweek poll, coming after the NBC/WSJ poll, offers more hope for Democrats, even as the underlying challenge stays the same.

The midterms has been all about the Tea Party up until now. We’re just beginning to head into the pay attention period of the election season. This will be the most dangerous time for the Tea Party and the far right, which is already being proven, because as people tune in the contrast between Democrats and people running on the Republican right is as real as it is frightening.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the right-wing radio crew, along with Fox News, are all going full tilt to back the extremists. Rush saying these “regular people” have simply lived “real lives.” One can only imagine what the wingnut radio crew would be squealing if Ms. O’Donnell was a Democrat claiming to have practiced witchcraft. Rush calling Mr. Paladino “Trumanesque” when he threatened to take out New York Post State Editor Fred Dicker. This election season has turned Limbaugh’s analysis into a parody parade of not to be believed propaganda that I haven’t heard from him since he speculated on air that Pres. Bill Clinton was a murderer.

The race that most defines the midterms is Sen. Harry Reid versus Sharron Angle. Reid is disliked by many Nevadans, but also gets low marks in just about every national poll. However, when you look at Sharron Angle there is real danger in being so cavalier as to think she’s a sober choice for the Senate. This race is a microcosm of what’s happening in other places across the country, with the Tea Party candidates that are succeeding revealing their inner adult, which has been Marco Rubio’s strength, no matter his far right reach. Still, the bottom line is that for many likely voters the choice remains none of the above or the lesser of two evils, which actually is the only thing standing between the Democrats and oblivion.

Meanwhile, Thomas Friedman made the case Sunday for an independent candidacy for 2012, which spun Steve Benen and others into a hissy fit over it. Granted, Mr. Friedman doesn’t get much right (see Iraq), with Benen saying Friedman is simply part of a “long list of centrist media figures to call for a third party to offer a sensible alternative to Democrats and Republicans.” Benen finds Friedman’s argument “unpersuasive.” But if Benen is going to grumble about “unpersuasive” he should check his own argument, though he’s got a lot of company on this one.

There’s a reason people aren’t crazy about both parties, even if they like Democrats more, including what they say they stand for, with Republicans coming in second to Democrats. Campaigning on the public option then killing it without a fight isn’t inspiring. Republicans killing everything is even worse. Speaker Pelosi inviting the Catholic Church to help write health care was an outrage. Republicans killing any hope of expanding health care even worse. It’s the type of leaders that rise in both big parties, which many believe has gotten us in the mess we’re in, but is also keeping us stuck. Likely voters are turning to outsiders, while longing for a choice beyond the big two, for a reason.

It’s a problem when Rand Paul and Jack Conway, clearly the better choice for Kentuckians, both say they think the Bush tax cuts should be extended. Both afraid to upset the tax cart, because someone might run a negative ad saying they’re raising taxes. Bill Clinton raised taxes in the 1990s, but that didn’t work out too badly, now did it? But of course, Bubba could sell it.

Now, it wouldn’t be a shocker, since Friedman is a New Yorker, that he’s secretly hoping for a Michael Bloomberg run in 2012. That’s not the issue and neither is the Donald Trump fantasy candidacy. The issue is that people are sick of the same old political formula with the same types of creatures the big two parties churn out, which now includes Barack Obama for many likely voters, because people feel the campaign marketing hasn’t lived up to the man’s actions. It’s why the number one issue in the midterms is outsider status.

Take Linda McMahon in Connecticut. She’s left her wrestling wildness in the dust and is coming off as a serious businesswoman who wants to go to Washington to change what’s been happening. She’s also got the outsider, independent quotient, which is the number one identifying element for all candidates who are rising to the top, including being a woman, something that makes her the ultimate political outsider. As an aside, Charlie Crist going conveniently Independent has been clearly seen as perfunctory, with Florida voters knowing an insider pol when they see one, rejecting Crist for Rubio. McMahon’s opponent, Mr. Blumenthal, is as insider as you get in Connecticut, so with McMahon’s sober campaign countering the crazy of other right-wing candidates, she’s moved into striking distance. Whether she can win is another matter, which is still the question haunting all the outsider types who have come a long way, but still have to get elected.

As for Democrats, they’ve got real problems, which are making people restless and looking elsewhere. With Pres. Obama the instigator of the “Debt Commission” that is targeting fundamental changes to Social Security, with Democrats going along so far, why shouldn’t voters be questioning the loss of their political soul? When Democrats won’t fight for middle class tax cuts and make the case before an election, why shouldn’t people look for an Independent who will?

What will put the outsiders in office is that Democrats may come out for candidates as they would in normal midterms, but Tea Party, Independents and Republican numbers will likely be much greater. What shakes out in the balance is the election, but also the House, with the Senate remaining safe for Democrats, though considering their weak leadership it hardly matters.

Looking forward, what the chaos politics of the midterms continues to unleash is a further acting out of voters showing their dissatisfaction with both Democrats and Republicans. It won’t go away after November no matter how much partisans want to ignore it and whether Tea Party candidates win or lose.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 36 }

The Day That Rahm Left, Dems Couldn’t Be in a Worse Position

By on 01 October 2010

–this post has been updated–

… Our last national poll found that 19% of voters both disapproved of Barack Obama’s job performance and disapproved of the Republicans in Congress. Those folks are planning to vote Republican for Congress by a 76-6 margin this fall. They may not be happy with either side but when it comes to deciding how to vote in November their feelings against Obama are a much more decisive factor than their feelings against Republicans in general. – Public Policy Polling

Midterm voters aren’t crazy about Republicans, but they’re intense feelings against Pres. Obama outweigh that feeling. The closer we get to election day, unfortunately for Democrats, the more this reality is going to grow.

The mantra continues to be by most that this is all economy driven. While there can be no question that the economy is making things worse, the feelings of anger, disappointment and frustration go well beyond the economy for Democrats, but particularly for Pres. Obama. It’s one reason Andrew Sullivan’s plea to watch Obama’s speech on C-SPAN just won’t work and in fact sounds remarkably out of touch.

People have heard the words. They remember candidate Obama and the hope they felt that he was going to be different. It’s not that he didn’t accomplish everything. It’s that as the months have passed in his first term, once health care was passed, the auto industry was bailed out, and the stimulus was in motion, what your average middle class American is feeling doesn’t seem to have registered with Pres. Obama. In his words and speeches he talks about “not going back,” obviously invoking Bush without saying it. The trouble is no voter today wants to go back, but they also don’t want what Mr. Obama’s been doing and want to make sure that doesn’t continue.

Considering Pres. Obama and the Democrats haven’t said what they’d do going forward, mostly because they dont’ know, the sour taste in everyone’s mouths is all people are left swallowing.

There is another thing working against Pres. Obama that goes well beyond the economy. Many people feel the President is above it all, because he just won’t admit he’s part of the problem. That he doesn’t understand this, doesn’t relate to the charge, but just keeps on pressing forward telling voters about “the choice” just leads Obama and the Dems into a ditch, because “the choice” right now doesn’t include them.

Pres. Obama’s lack of humility is killing Democrats for the midterm.

The question is how come the White House and the DNC doesn’t know this is their reality? Even Speaker Pelosi is ignoring it, talking of “spirit of optimism” as her caucus leaves to fight the midterms. Is she kidding? The better choice for Democrats would have been to head straight into voter discontent, acknowledge it, then say we hear you and we’re going to do better if you give us two more years. Then name the top five priorities, something for Pres. Bill Clinton has also suggested.

Instead, Obama, Biden and the White House has blamed everyone else for not bucking up. They should have tried something unexpected, taking responsibility and being humble, saying “we need your help, because we can’t do this without you.” Better yet, Pres. Obama should have signed an Executive Order stopping military discharges for gay soldiers, then pushed in public the case for middle class tax cuts. Stood on a line.

None of this happened, choosing the amorphous message of “the choice,” which is falling on deaf ears, because Obama isn’t one of them either with most likely voters, especially Independents.

There is a sour feeling about Pres. Obama out in the electorate that is not only toxic, but goes well beyond economic answers. It’s a feeling that the President won’t admit he’s part of the problem. He seems a league a way, in his own world.

The most telling moment was yesterday during Dylan Ratigan’s show when Steve Hildebrand Hildebrand, Barack Obama’s 2008 Deputy National Campaign Manager, was his guest. He was brought on to make the case for Obama. In an ironic turn, however, Mr. Hildebrand ended up making the case of why the base was so mad at Obama and the Democrats. At one point Ratigan said that he was supposed to make the case for Obama, not against him. If the White House was watching, no doubt they simply called Hildebrand another “whiner.”

There will be a lot of changes once them midterms have come and gone. Mr. Rouse taking the place of Rahm Emanuel who is leaving today, which is getting a lot of press. Unfortunately, even though Rahm’s a favorite whipping boy, because of his antipathy towards Obama’s critics, his abrasiveness, and because Democrats cannot get rid of the boss, it won’t solve the problem. Still, it does give the Obama White House a chance at a reset. However, Mr. Rouse, who is evidently a very nice man, from what I’m hearing, is still a loyalist insider. But a New York Times article points to Rouse as helping Elizabeth Warren make it in. That’s something. Still, as far as I can ascertain, the White House bubble is not in any danger of being pierced with a dose of reality, something the Democratic base has been trying to deliver for months.

You can move the deck chairs, even fire the crew, but if the captain doesn’t have a compass, he’s never going to find his way.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Nobody Should Give Money to This Crowd

By on 30 September 2010

Pres. Obama’s “the choice” election midterm mantra isn’t working out very well in one key area. Big Democratic donors have a choice and they’ve decided to sit out the midterms. Who’s shocked by this story?

Pres. Obama, Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi compromised on health care without a fight. They did deals in the dark with the insurance companies, not to mention the Catholic Church, then shoved a mandate on health care down the rest of the Democratic Party’s throat, as well as the American public, while movement progressives screamed to high heaven what it would cost them.

See the Tea Party rise in 2010, which was a direct result of the inept leadership and lack of ideological fortitude of the Democratic elite. They passed stimulus with a big “D” on it that wasn’t what was needed, managing to get people furious about the spending, especially since it wasn’t enough to actually work. In other words, they failed to do their job, because they didn’t have the courage craft real stimulus that was actually needed and could have proved Democratic policies can work when they’re done the right way. Now, in one of the latest polls, people actually think Republicans will manage government better! That’s quite an “accomplishment” for Obama and the Democrats.

Pres. Obama, Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi decided that taking on the Bush era crimes of torture, intelligence tampering, as well as constitutional overreach, was not important for Democrats to take up, so not only did they let Bush-Cheney get away with what they did on the run up to the Iraq war, but the negligence of Democratic leadership, starting with Pres. Obama, has actually allowed for the rehabilitation of Bush-Cheney in some quarters. You didn’t have to impeach Bush to hold his administration accountable.

The latest insult, ducking middle class tax cuts, is just the latest cave-in by this crew, but it’s part of a powerfully long that has pushed big money Dem donors to pass on giving money this midterms. From the New York Times:

Many wealthy Democratic patrons, who in the past have played major roles financing outside groups to help elect the party’s candidates, are largely sitting out these crucial midterm elections.

Democratic donors like George Soros, the bête noire of the right, and his fellow billionaire Peter B. Lewis, who each gave more than $20 million to Democratic-oriented groups in the 2004 election, appear to be holding back so far.

“Mr. Soros believes that he can be most effective by funding groups that promote progressive policy outcomes in areas such as health care, the environment and foreign policy,” said an adviser, Michael Vachon. “So he has opted to fund those activities.”

That last one is very important. Years ago I was on a closed conference call with Mr. Soros, getting a feel for what moves this man. It’s clear that he’s not interested in personality politics, which is what Barack Obama offers above all else. Not only is Mr. Obama not an ideologue, but his lack of conviction on the principles of good policy makes him a blank slate for donors like Soros whose passions ride along the line of issues. They simply don’t know which way Mr. Obama will blow at any given time.

The Catfood Commission is a prime example. The only reason this was set up is because Pres. Obama wanted it. We don’t need no stinking commission, because Congress is perfectly capable of taking care of Social Security, which means preserving it. However, like in all things, Pres. Obama wanted the cover of a commission so he could blame someone else on what he actually hopes to do: raise the retirement age; cut benefits; privatize elements of the plan. Pick one, or choose all. Why a Democrat would put in play a bipartisan commission on a signature Democratic Party issue that cemented the reputation of the party as working for financial security for all, specifically as Americans age, is something that few Democrats can stomach, myself included.

TM.com reader “Lynnette,” a teacher adamantly opposed to what Pres. Obama is doing on education, wrote the other day that what Pres. Obama is hinting at doing on Social Security (along with his education reform) “may be the final straw that keeps this life long Democrat from voting in the 2012 presidential election. That would be a first for me.” Lynnette has a lot of company.

There is a cluelessness among Democratic leadership in Congress that has forgotten their job and has them siding with the Executive Branch, because Pres. Obama is one of their own, even if he is calling open season on one of the signature Democratic policies that long time Democratic voters believe in, have worked for all of their activist lives, but is also one of the policies that signifies the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Pres. Obama has already sacrificed health care to insurance companies, putting forth a law that is disliked by the majority of the public, but also will be easy to dismantle by defunding its implementation. He’s mimicked George W. Bush on security issue after issue, while completely forgetting his promise to close Gitmo, with his promises on DADT weighing most gays and lesbians down in disbelief.

Now as the midterm elections rev up, we’re all being treated to ad nauseam word salads on cable yet again, which considering his almost two-year record in office is now ringing flat, the “fired up” rhetoric sounding worn out, because everyone is already already exhausted from his presidency and he’s not even into year three, and we know when the election is over it will be more compromises without a fight, as usual.

So why would anyone in their right mind give buckets of money to the Democrats right now? They shouldn’t and they aren’t, and small donations won’t cut it this time around, especially since they won’t be coming in like they used to. The days of 2008 are gone, baby.

Read full story · Comments { 29 }

Dems Duck: Afraid GOP Will ‘Mischaracterize’ Middle Class Tax Cut

By on 23 September 2010

–updated below–



Are you telling me that the party of F.D.R. and Harry S. Truman, but also tax slasher John F. Kennedy, cannot make the case for middle class tax cuts, while not extending cuts to the wealthiest 2%? As for small businesses, Democrats already covered that in the $42B Small Business Jobs Act, which the House is just now sending to Obama’s desk.

Democrats have also decided to not deal with the Bush tax cut repeal. Speaker Pelosi couldn’t rally her caucus, mostly because of conservative Democrats worried about midterms. Someone needs to explain what the hell having a majority is if so called Democrats are going to slither away without making the case for middle class tax cuts.

If any Congress deserved to get blown out of Washington it’s the 111th. I know it will usher in ugliness from the Right. However, if Democrats won’t stand on a line to make the case they’ve stood on throughout history, which is standing up for the middle class, then they don’t deserve the majority.

There is wide support for middle class tax cuts:

“The president’s recent proposal to extend tax cuts for the middle class, while letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy, is a smart political move for a number of reasons: 1) it enjoys rising public support; 2) it protects against the loss of swing independents; 3) it allows Democrats to drive a contrast with the GOP; and 4) it allows Democrats to address voters’ overlapping economic concerns,” offers the memo, which was obtained by HuffPost and written by John Anzalone and Mark Keida of Anzalone Liszt Research.

Not even bothering to make the fight is the height of political cowardice and malpractice. It’s leaving a move on the board against Republicans un-played that Democrats need and the electorate wants to hear from them. Make the case, drive it home hard, then let the people decide who has their economic back.

If Democrats in “difficult” districts can’t make the case against extending Bush tax cuts for the top 2%, while resoundingly raising their voice for middle class tax cuts, then these Democrats deserve to lose, because the district is too red to help the Democratic agenda actually manifest real progress that matters.

Ryan Grimm gives us a breakdown, which includes Sen. Feinstein saying it would be a “mistake” to tackle tax cuts before the election. But this coming from Ms. Milulski sickens me:

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), also up for re-election, said that she was in favor of voting on extending the middle-class tax cuts before the election, but was willing to extend tax breaks for the wealthy for two years as part of a compromise.

Where has FDR’s Democratic Party gone?

Washington’s Patty Murray, who’s in the fight of her life, said it plainly: “We should not go home without extending these tax cuts.” Sen. Russ Feingold said basically the same thing.

Greg Sargent got a statement from the White House, which on the news of a punt blamed Republicans.

Never has a Democratic majority failed to use their power to fight for the middle class, with Pres. Obama taking the only way out he has to blame Republicans, even though it was the Democratic leadership in Congress that made the decision.

Average Americans, blue collar Dems, as opposed to conservative Blue Dog Dems, depend on Democrats. The 111th Congress let them down by refusing to make the tax cut fight. Why shouldn’t people vote them out?

UPDATE: Joe Sestak, running against Toomey, reveals what a fighting Democrat looks like, while also illustrating why he beat Pres. Obama’s candidate, Arlen Specter. It’s such a bad year for Dems, but Specter is not giving an inch.

“This is no time to shy away from this fight — because we’re fighting for middle class Americans,” said Joe. “We cannot let the extremists and the special interests shout us down, no matter how many millions they spend on deceptive campaigns against us. We were elected to fight for ordinary Americans, and this is the moment when we prove we can fulfill that public trust. This is the hour for courageous leadership. Working families are struggling, and we cannot afford to kick the can down the road. Let’s stand up and say ‘enough is enough.’”

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

Deliver Us From Harry Reid

By on 21 September 2010

If Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand was part of Sarah Palin’s Tea Party pack she’d be getting invitations to “Fox News,” “Face the Nation,” and “This Week.” She’d be everywhere on cable. Why Democrats don’t have her out in force is a mystery. Maybe Chuck Schumer is jealous because he isn’t hot. Kidding. …sort of.

In fact, the Democratic reaction to all the women rising in the public eye on the Right has been… Silence. No show of progressive female power to counter their noise.

If you want to know the depth of the Democratic Party’s problem with women see Senate majority leader Reid’s sexist comment about Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. From Politico:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had an unusual form of praise for New York’s junior senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, this morning at the fundraiser Mayor Bloomberg hosted for him at his townhouse – referring to her as “the hottest member” as she sat just a few feet away, according to three sources.

The comment prompted Gillibrand to turn red, according to the sources, and created a bit of stir among the small crowd there.

“It was pretty shocking when he said it,” said one source familiar with the remark and the reaction.

It’s not shocking at all.

The larger take is that while the Hillary effect has swept in more female ambassadors to Washington since 2009, with Palin’s vice presidential nomination the first outcome of the Hillary effect, there is little to be seen of the prowess Clinton attained and the voters she excited 22 months into Barack Obama’s frat boy presidency.

It’s as if Democrats thought signing Lily Ledbetter was all that was needed to be done. Never mind you have to have a good job to have equal pay be relevant.

Women on the right have been helped immensely by Sarah Palin’s rising power (video).

I’ve asked this before, but where is the Left’s Sarah Palin? …and don’t use your bitchwit to say we don’t want one. As 2010 has proven, Yes We Do.

Sen. Reid’s aide Jim Manley could only trumpet “What can I say, she made The Hilll’s ‘Most Beautiful list.” Then, as if to offer it in an aside to Politico’s Maggie Haberman, he mentioned Gillibrand’s “skill and tenacity.”

Harry’s “hot” comment is indicative of a deep problem inside the Democratic Party elite that reared its head during the health care debate, when Democrats, led by Speaker Pelosi and Barack Obama, wouldn’t fight for women’s rights, with the entire progressive caucus caving so that the Hyde Amendment could be sanctioned in law, not just as a budget item. Not even liberal women’s groups gave a damn.

This happened at the hand of the first female speaker of the House, with a Democratic president and a majority. Think about that for a minute.

In the 21st century, abortion rights opponents aren’t seen as dangerous to women’s freedoms anymore. Many younger women, as well as older women like Pelosi, consider abortion an issue whose time has come and gone, with medical science delivering ways around it, starting with pharmacology. That’s understandable in one respect, except a woman is not free if she doesn’t have control over her own body. A point of fact that is now considered quaint, even inside the Democratic Party.

Women still believe Democrats are the ones who most represent them, with Democratic women much more successful in Congress than Republican so far. If Dem females lose in 2010 we’ll all have to chalk it up to equality, because when you compete equally the same trends apply to you, too.

Meanwhile, in 2010 men are the angriest voter and more enthused to vote. Women are tuning out and dropping out, with many turning Independent. Democrats just aren’t doing it for them, at least according to my emails, FB emails, as well as other anecdotal reporting.

The Hillary effect has been wasted by Democrats, with women less engaged this election than I’ve seen in a very long time. Independent women see hope in Tea Party candidates like Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Nikki Haley, too, all part of the post-Hillary political era.

As for Pres. Obama, as leader of the Democratic Party he’s inept at speaking to women’s issues. He not only doesn’t feel our pain. He hasn’t a frickin’ clue.

Neither does Harry Reid.

Read full story · Comments { 71 }

Sarah Palin Gets More Like George W. Bush Every Day

By on 02 August 2010

…no one in the Democratic leadership — not President Obama, not Nancy Pelosi, not Harry Reid — is arguing against extending the tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 a year ($200,000 a year for individuals). Indeed, the Obama administration — irresponsibly in my view — has said those “middle class” cuts should be made permanent. The only disagreement is over whether to let the tax cuts expire for the upper brackets — at a cost of about $700 billion over ten years. – Ruth Marcus

“Demagoguery and hucksterism,” that says it all about where conservatism is today.

It’s not the media’s fault that independents don’t like Sarah Palin (see video).

This is not the conversation I want to have about leading female politicians and Sarah Palin shouldn’t be serving herself up like this. Notes on the woman’s palm, facts wrong even then, a veteran news anchor playing along like it’s okay. Palin’s fans may find it charming, but being unprepared and uninformed isn’t charming.

The right would have exploded with derisive venom and photoshopped hillbilly photos if Speaker Pelosi had shown up to talk to Christiane Amanpour with hand notes on her palm. But at least maybe Pelosi would have made sure the scribble on her hand was correct.

Mrs. Palin couldn’t even get that part right.

There is something very weird, frightening even, when you compare Sarah Palin’s treatment to what Hillary Rodham Clinton went through for 16 years. Hillary was demonized for the smallest things, with caricatures made vilifying Hillary in the worst ways. Can you just imagine if Hillary had come on “Fox News Sunday” (or any other Sunday show) with notes on her palm? The sound of the collective head explosion on the right would have been deafening.

There is simply no excuse for a professional female politician in the 21st century to present herself like this, especially while pointing the finger at political opponents and challenging their intestinal fortitude, as if “cojones” is all it takes to be president.

We had one cowboy in office and we don’t need a cowgirl.

As for Palin’s palm prompter, transcript via Think Progress:

“My palm isn’t large enough to have written all my notes down on what this tax increase, what it will result in,” Palin continued.

Host Chris Wallace noticed that Palin did indeed have something written on her palm. “Can I ask you, what do you have written on your hand?” he asked.

“$3.8 trillion in the next 10 years,” Palin responded, “so I didn’t say $3.7 trillion and then get dinged by the liberals saying I didn’t know what I was talking about.”

Chris Wallace laughs while asking Palin what’s on her hand, but her inability to even remember the simplest number reveals a stunning lack of depth that is appalling. That she dares to put herself above people currently in government reveals her arrogance, which she’s proving herself isn’t justified.

Ignorance and arrogance are a very dangerous combination in someone who has the ambition of Sarah Palin. She’s getting more like George W. Bush every day and we all know how that ended.

This essay has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 24 }

Christiane Amanpour Breaks ‘If it’s Sunday, it’s Misogyny’ Sunday Show Ceiling

By on 01 August 2010

–bumped–


The Sunday political shows are the most important news shows in politics. It’s when people beyond the obsessed sometimes check in to see what’s going on. Women have been missing since the major networks Sunday show inception. ABC’s “This Week” changes all that this Sunday with Christiane Amanpour.

Candy Crowley for CNN was the first woman to break through on Sunday, with Christiane Amanpour the first on the big three. Katie Couric and Diane Sawyer have made Brian Williams the last man standing on the big three nightly news shows.

I began ranting at the late Tim Russert’s “If it’s Sunday, it’s Misogyny” MTP foundation years ago. Politico finally wrote on the subject in June 2010, after the ladies election night cemented the Hillary effect was in full force. On Russert’s shows where religion, abortion and “family values” were discussed, there was seldom if ever a woman invited on to share headliner status. David Gregory continued the status quo when during the health care debate when the Stupak amendment was raging, one important Sunday when the headlines focused on abortion, Gregory didn’t have one female headliner, not one on to discuss a topic that impacts women more than any man. Thanks to Rachel Maddow’s growing prominence, “Meet the Press” and their Executive Producer Betsy Fischer have been forced to welcome Maddow on the show. She can get Gregory ratings he cannot get himself.

There is a lot happening for women today. It’s been happening slowly for quite some time, which Hillary’s historic presidential candidacy broke out into the open. After all, Hillary’s 18 million cracks is why McCain chose Sarah Palin, and the rest is history unfolding, with the Hillary effect in action, the Washington Post the first to write about it where world ambassadors are concerned.

The Atlantic Magazine is featuring a provocatively titled summer piece by Hanah Rosin, (ahem) “The End of Men.” Not crazy about the title, but it includes interesting data points.

Man has been the dominant sex since, well, the dawn of mankind. But for the first time in human history, that is changing—and with shocking speed. Cultural and economic changes always reinforce each other. And the global economy is evolving in a way that is eroding the historical preference for male children, worldwide. Over several centuries, South Korea, for instance, constructed one of the most rigid patriarchal societies in the world. Many wives who failed to produce male heirs were abused and treated as domestic servants; some families prayed to spirits to kill off girl children. Then, in the 1970s and ’80s, the government embraced an industrial revolution and encouraged women to enter the labor force. Women moved to the city and went to college. They advanced rapidly, from industrial jobs to clerical jobs to professional work. The traditional order began to crumble soon after. In 1990, the country’s laws were revised so that women could keep custody of their children after a divorce and inherit property. In 2005, the court ruled that women could register children under their own names. As recently as 1985, about half of all women in a national survey said they “must have a son.” That percentage fell slowly until 1991 and then plummeted to just over 15 percent by 2003. Male preference in South Korea “is over,” says Monica Das Gupta, a demographer and Asia expert at the World Bank. “It happened so fast. It’s hard to believe it, but it is.” The same shift is now beginning in other rapidly industrializing countries such as India and China.

Rosin also tangentially addresses what I talked about back in April. We have different threads, but I discussed the militaristic language of men used by women like Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin and Liz Cheney, as well as people like Jane Harman and others where national security is concerned. Talking like men because there’s is the language on national security people recognize, with women not yet breaking out and free to craft our own way on matters of war and peace. Rosin’s slant is different, but still fits the general narative.

In fact, the more women dominate, the more they behave, fittingly, like the dominant sex. Rates of violence committed by middle-aged women have skyrocketed since the 1980s, and no one knows why. High-profile female killers have been showing up regularly in the news: Amy Bishop, the homicidal Alabama professor; Jihad Jane and her sidekick, Jihad Jamie; the latest generation of Black Widows, responsible for suicide bombings in Russia. In Roman Polanski’s The Ghost Writer, the traditional political wife is rewritten as a cold-blooded killer at the heart of an evil conspiracy. In her recent video Telephone, Lady Gaga, with her infallible radar for the cultural edge, rewrites Thelma and Louise as a story not about elusive female empowerment but about sheer, ruthless power. Instead of killing themselves, she and her girlfriend (played by Beyoncé) kill a bad boyfriend and random others in a homicidal spree and then escape in their yellow pickup truck, Gaga bragging, “We did it, Honey B.”

The advent of Christiane Amanpour on “This Week” has already revealed one campaign launched against her (with Tom Shales as front man), because of who she is (born in Iran to an Iranian father named Mohammad), but also because she reported on Islam for CNN, while also being an honest broker on the Middle East and Israel. Let’s see who comes after her next. On the first show she will interview the most powerful woman in American politics, Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Love her or hate Pelosi, she’s no Sarah Palin, not a quitter, and not relegated to pontificating on Facebook. Though to give credit where it’s due, Sarah Palin made history on the Republican ticket and no female in Republican history has ever possessed her star power and impact on conservatives, which has nothing to do with Executive Branch viability. However, Pelosi has risen steadily in a male dominated arena to be the first female Speaker of the House, no easy feat, though her legacy will be forever weighed down by her Bart Stupak – Catholic Church arranged alliance, as far as many of us are concerned.

I’ll be watching on Sunday when Ms. Amanpour makes history. Women have been doing a lot of that lately.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

2010: Rep. Anthony Weiner Blasts Republicans, Speaker Pelosi Joins In

By on 30 July 2010

Nothing else needs to be said.

Now segue to Speaker Pelosi blasting Republicans on their efforts to privatize Social Security.

“Just five years ago, President Bush and his Republican allies pushed a risky plan to privatize and cut Social Security,” she said. “If they had succeeded, seniors would have lost trillions more in the financial crisis. At the time, Democrats and the American people said ‘no.’ And no one lost a penny in Social Security, even as America’s households lost more than $17 trillion in wealth.” [...] “This year, Republicans are charting a course right back to the failed ideas of the past,” Pelosi said. “Again, Democrats and the American people are saying ‘no.’ We are not going back to the exact same agenda of the Bush years.” – The Hill

If you ask the American people, which Gallup has done, a majority want wealthy Americans to help save Social Security.



No doubt about it, the midterms have begun.

Read full story · Comments { 24 }

It’s All About the Ladies

By on 29 July 2010



The story behind the screen capture above of the AP photo is what’s news today. Pres. Obama is slipping in one of the most important demographics you can have, women, and he’s going on a show that draws them in like few others. Midterms may depend on gaining them back.

Speaker Pelosi also got her pound of flesh from Pres. Obama after the last clash with the White House.

President Barack Obama’s endless summer of fundraising is heating up — with the addition of a big-money August house party to help out House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s imperiled Democrats, POLITICO has learned. Obama plans to headline an Aug. 16 fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in Los Angeles — the first such appearance by the president on behalf of Pelosi since White House press secretary Robert Gibbs rankled House Democrats by suggesting they could lose their majority.

As I illustrated yesterday, the Democratic plan for midterms is very simple. Brand the Republican Tea Party as extreme, which isn’t hard. So, even after all the talk of “accomplishments,” that’s not what will do it for Democrats. The truth is that Obama and Democrats have squandered their majority terribly through compromise after compromise, so the best they’ve got is If you think we’re bad, the other guy is nuts. Marc Amdinder picked up the thread late yesterday.

As for things like “The View,” it won’t take much to boost Obama. Every point he gets puts Democrats closer to keeping the House. It’s not complicated, but it is critical.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }